Gujarat High Court
G I D C Plot And Shed Holders Association ... vs Gujarat Industrial Development ... on 10 June, 2015
Bench: Jayant Patel, Rajesh H.Shukla
C/SCA/13198/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 13198 of 2014
==========================================================
G I D C PLOT AND SHED HOLDERS ASSOCIATION (DARED) &
5....Petitioner(s)
Versus
GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION &
2....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance:
VIRAL K SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 6
DS AFF.NOT FILED (R) for the Respondent(s) No. 3
MR RITURAJ M MEENA, ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH H.SHUKLA
Date : 10/06/2015
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL)
1. The petitioners by this petition are seeking appropriate writ to declare clause 22 of the Allotment Letter (AnnexureA) and the undertaking (AnnexureB) being arbitrary, illegal and nonest and it is prayed that the respondent GIDC be restrained from claiming the amount under clause 22 of the Letter of Allotment in light of the lack of diligence and suppression before the Court of law.
2. We have heard Mr. Percy Kavina, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Viral K. Shah, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Mihir Joshi, learned Senior Counsel with Mr. Meena, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation and its officers.
Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/13198/2014 ORDER3. The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioners to support the petition is that the GIDC while pursuing the matter for payment of compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, did not properly pursue the matter before the concerned Reference Court as well as before this Court and also before the Apex Court and resultantly, if the liability to pay the compensation is enhanced, such can be said as nonprudent action taken by GIDC and hence, would not be entitled to invoke clause 22 by which indemnity bond was given by the respective petitioners. It was submitted that in the litigation under the Land Acquisition Act for payment of compensation, the petitioners had no say nor could be permitted to be impleaded as party since GIDC pursued the matter as if it was public money to be paid by way of compensation. Hence, Mr. Kavina submitted that this Court may consider the matter.
4. As such, if the matter is to be considered on the aspect of conduct of the petitioners, the petitioners are party to the letter of allotment, by their volition accepted the condition and thereafter, have also executed the indemnity bond and therefore, in normal circumstances, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that the condition is illegal or that the liability would not be attracted pursuant to the indemnity bond.
5. The attempt to contend that there was no prudent Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/13198/2014 ORDER approach on the part of GIDC to pursue the matter under the Land Acquisition Act for payment of compensation cannot be countenanced for the following reasons
6. The first is that it is not a matter where GIDC abandoned the litigation and acted in careless manner by accepting the compensation declared by the reference court at the first instance. On the contrary, it appears that the GIDC pursued the litigation and made attempt to get the reduction of the compensation by adopting the course available in law, i.e., by preferring appeal before this Court and further before the Apex Court. Not only that, but thereafter, the against the decision of the Apex Court, Review Petition was also preferred by the GIDC for pursuing the matter. But it is a different matter that the Apex Court did not consider the review and ultimately maintained the amount of compensation already ordered earlier.
7. The second is that, at no point of time, any attempt was made on the part of the petitioners to intervene in the proceedings pertaining to the Land Acquisition for payment of compensation by showing that GIDC is acting in collusion or that it has remained lethargic and resultantly, higher liability on the part of the petitioners.
8. The third aspect which may be considered is that by implied conduct of the petitioners, the Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/13198/2014 ORDER petitioners have allowed the litigation to be pursued by GIDC without any intervention at their instance and when the liability is to be honoured as per the Indemnity Bond, by way of a second thought, the ground is made out for contending that GIDC did not act prudently for pursuing the litigation.
9. In view of the above, we find that such attempt cannot be countenanced. In any case, when the Apex Court has confirmed the amount of compensation, it would not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to contend that higher liability is to be shouldered by them on account of non pursuation of the matter under the Land Acquisition Act by GIDC for which otherwise the petitioners have impliedly by their express conduct agreed to be abided by.
10. In view of the above, we do not find any case for interference. Hence, the present petition is not entertained and therefore, dismissed.
(JAYANT PATEL, J.) (RAJESH H.SHUKLA, J.) bjoy Page 4 of 4